Lord Justice Wall this morning
showed the benevolence of an Iraqi dictator. He said 'Anything which
shows the proper working of the family justice system is, in my view,
to be welcomed'

The law was ignored, fact
was ignored and judicial arrogance came to the fore.

Most of the Judgment woffles
on previous Appeal, another case and lip service to the legal and factual
argument put to the Court.

An open letter was sent to
Lord Justice Wall [attached] and it would be appreciated if requests
could be sent to him for my committal for perjury/ perversion of the
course of justice, contempt of Court proceedings and for bringing the
administration of justice into disrepute. Please feel free to forward
and to put onto websites this email and the attachments.

Lord Justice Wall has been
put on notice that this cannot continue as it is bringing the administration
of Justice into disrepute and creating a minefield of problems for the
future generations.

There is no point in fathers
arguing for Family Law reform and new laws when the judges can cherry
pick, ignore their own precedents, and specific case laws from ECtHR.

The judicial abuses of power
are the biggest factor in the destruction of Family life in the western
industrialized world.

In order to help expose this,
we have been preparing a campaign to the United Nations on the abuses
destroying the strong families that used to exist.

We are preparing a campaign
to the United Nations under 1503 procedure of persistent, systematic
and widespread abuses of human rights in the western world. This involves
all western industrialized countries abusing families.

We are seeking bodies to
support and help jointly and to put their names and/ or group logos
onto the petition.

The first stage of the campaign
is to get at least ten thousand signatures to the petition. The second
step is to amass prima facie evidenced cases and submissions showing
the failures of western Governments and Judiciary in the destruction
of families.

I note that the formal hand
down of the judgment is to take place on August 25th 06. I do not believe
in attending as this will only give pretence and precedence to an otherwise
flawed judicial system of protecting one’s own kind as the judgment
ignores the truth, the law and the facts of the case. Furthermore it
is a deliberate act of judicial abuse of power.

I may as well have read nursery
rhymes in Court perhaps that would impress LJ Wall. My children’s
welfare has not been paramount as ever and judicial analysis of the
factual and legal argument was once again lacking.

I also sent the school report
on my son which shows very different behaviour to that which the school
and/ or CAFCASS Guardian reported to Court. It has also now come to
light that not only were there two bundles before the court which were
never served on me but also that there was a witness bundle.

As you expected and rightly
so in last paragraph;

‘’ If, in his
eyes, I now join the ranks of the biased and the time-serving, the public
will, I hope be in a position to judge the fallacy of that approach
from the publication of the judgments of this court in his case.’’

You do so by your own actions
in this judgement. I couldn’t have described it better myself.

The public cannot judge themselves
without seeing the evidence and argument which was before the courts
involving – HHJ Milligan, Mr. Justice Sumner, HHJ Bond, Lord Justice
Wilson, Mr. Justice Coleridge and LJ Wall and therefore ask for permission
for the public to see the evidence against them and the State bodies
when you are going public with such self-serving diatribe and trite
and I have the right to defend myself against libel, slander and falsehoods.
My children’s welfare has never been paramount only the continued
cover-up of wrongs by not only the State bodies but also the Judiciary
themselves.

In your own words; ‘’Anything
which shows the proper working of the family justice system is, in my
view, to be welcomed.’’

I have provided three affidavits
and insist that I be prosecuted for perjury.

I have provided factual and
legal argument, evidence, statements and addendums and insist I be prosecuted
for contempt of court as I must have been lying.

I also note the blinkered
attitude to Parental Alienation Syndrome and ask you again how can I
have changed the children’s memories, blanked their memories,
and instilled hatred in my children when I have not seen them since
October 26th 1999? How can they hate their father for ‘making
things look so good?’ Should I have abused them as the mother
aided and abetted by the stepfather has? Should I have lied to them?

You are creating a dysfunctional
future generation and this vile system abusing the law and human rights
shall be brought back to a just administration; as we, the public, whom
you serve have the right to expect.

I request permission to appeal
to the House of Lords on the following grounds;

Do Lord Justices as well
as other Judges have to obey the law?

Is a Judge permitted to ignore
pertinent evidence and fact before them?

Are state bodies under a
duty to obey the law and act honestly and openly within Family proceedings?

Is there not a right to justice
within family proceedings?

Can Judges at whatever level
ignore Human rights case law?

Do parties in Family Court
Private law proceedings not have the right to pursue Application for
damages and redress under sections 6, 7 and 8 HRA 1998 equally as in
public law?

Can Judges make section 91(14)
orders to last until a child is over 18?

Can judges select and ignore
facts and/ or law as they see fit after it is brought to their attention?

Is CAFCASS a body fit for
purpose given that like local Authority social services there is a history
of misleading the court, perjury, perversion of the course of justice
and other unlawful acts?

Is the UK Family Court sitting
in secret able to deliver justice such as in this case when Judges deliberately
mislead themselves and make astonishing assertions against litigants
who speak protesting at the abuses of human rights and common law?

If State bodies and Judiciary
can behave in such manner as I can show, why should anyone in UK obey
the law?

Are judges permitted to abuse
their power?

Is the children’s welfare
paramount in such circumstances as mentioned above?

Should Parental Alienation
Syndrome be investigated and assessed by a specialist child and adult
psychologist trained in such matters when Judges have no training in
child welfare as is evidenced in this case and in case law.

Obviously now I only have
one further route; recusal of Mr. Justice Coleridge and any future Appeal
cannot be heard by yourself for promulgating the abuses.

I repeat below that which
was said in open Court and has simply been brushed under the carpet;

"Blackstones" Constitutional
law and human rights volume 8 on Judicial Functions states The principal
functions of the judiciary may be described as follows:

To provide for the orderly
resolution of disputes, whether between private individuals or bodies,
or involving public bodies or the exercise of public or governmental
functions by public or private bodies;

To uphold the principle of
legality or the rule of law;

To protect the individual
against unlawful state activity;

This is an Appeal against
the following orders:

Order of February 22nd 2006
made by the Courts own motion

An order of March 29th 2006
by Mr. Justice Coleridge.

It is history repeating again,
the only difference is that had the Appellant been from Turkey or of
former Eastern Europe Countries there would be massive public and Government
outcry. Sadly the Appellant is a British, Caucasian and a male who have
lesser rights than illegal asylum seekers who have the Court’s
sympathy.

Law bidding families are
being disfranchised by biased decisions solely based on CAFCASS or similar
agency officers despite the finding of Lillie & Reed v Newcastle
City Council & Others [2002] EWHC 1600 (QB).

In the case of Re J (Care
Proceedings: Disclosure) [2003] 2 FLR 522 FD where there was concealment
and an attempt to mislead a parent and the court. Circumstances surrounding
this case are no different.

Last year the Court of Appeal
removed HHJ Milligan from further conduct of this case due to his gratuitous
words ‘Come to me in a different frame of mind and anything may
be possible.’

The Court of Appeal kindly
stated that there must be great progress in this case. I come before
you to say there has been none to date. I did not pursue HHJ Milligan
doggedly to have a better class of bias. I did it to protect my children’s
my rights and rights of any citizen under articles 6 and 8 of the Human
Rights Act 1998.

Article 6 rights are fundamental
and not to be offset or balanced against anyone else’s rights
under article 8. Article 17 clearly states that no one in power least
the Judge has the power to act which will violate the rights of the
citizen. This is further protected by article 13 of the European Convention
on human rights.

Yet the manner in which I
have been treated to date makes me believe that I am a victim of an
politically correct institution – Jews in the WW2 were better
treated and put out of their Misery but I am persistently being tortured
– something even ECtHR accepts as a violation of Article 3 of
the Convention e.g. Tekin v Turkey where mental torture is recognized.

The respondent mother locked
my son in the bedroom from the age of 2.5 to 5, she has lied to child
welfare person including health visitor, GP, counselor, schools, her
solicitor, social services AND she is rewarded by all.

Aided and abetted by the
State institutions, respondent and her husband believe they are above
the law, unlawfully changing my children’s surnames, telling false
stories to my children and alienating them, misleading the Court, and
with such confidence that they arrive at Court without lawyers knowing
their acts will be blessed by CAFCASS and Mr. Justice Coleridge with
impunity.

If a third party abused my
children I would be supported by the State in pursuing them for redress
and to help my children. Just because the abuser is my ex-wife, it is
covered up and even a Guardian who is supposed to represent the children
independently turns blind eyes and deaf ears.

In the words of Lord Laming,
- “the professionals involved were ready to accept the excuses
of the primary carer and abuser” – and – “too
often it seemed that too much time was spent deferring to the needs
of the mother and not enough time was spent on protecting vulnerable
and defenceless children”. In the Climbie Inquiry the main abuser
Marie Therese Kouao made sexual abuse allegations about Carl Manning
to the social workers to cover up her abuse.

Para 15.10 Lord Laming in
the Climbie enquiry said :- The basic requirement that children are
kept safe is universal and cuts across cultural boundaries. Every child
living in this country is entitled to be given the protection of the
law, regardless of his or her background.

I had Appealed the involvement
of HHJ Milligan on the grounds that he was a biased judge as he has
invented hearing that had never taken place, denied daytime wetting
in my daughter despite being given the pediatric notes, made judgment
on evidence he had refused to be allowed in Court and abused his power
and acted against the children’s best interests even accepting
a one and a half page letter to the mother’s solicitors as a ‘report
on the mother’s fitness for residence having seen her medical
records’ as the Court had ordered.

The truth was the mother’s
solicitors did not inform the psychiatrist of the Court order, the letter
was based on only two meetings with her in the UK for postnatal depression
not emotional instability, and borderline personality disorder and he
took into account no evidence, no statements, neither carried out any
psychiatric or psychological testing and simply repeated whatever the
mother told him.

The facts, symptoms and issues
relevant to the welfare of the children still remain uninvestigated
on behalf of the children. In volume five, section L page 7A it is clearly
stated that ‘the outcome of investigations and assessments carried
out by Social Services did not indicate the need to invoke Court proceedings
that would in turn have led to a much more detailed assessment i.e.
a comprehensive assessment.’ That form of assessment is more in-depth
and takes a wider view of all significant factors including if necessary
parental Alienation or psychological abuse.’ 5L7A.

Yet the Social worker Maggie
Smith had previously stated in her report and under oath that she had
carried out a comprehensive assessment.

Judge Milligan was a biased
Judge; this can be seen by the statements he made e.g.

‘She (the mother) started
by using the sock in the door idea that she got from father to restrain
him from leaving his room and also taking the handle off. Again that
is an idea that came from father.’ 2L8[3-7]

‘This is a man to whom
I think it has never occurred that there might be another view that
might be as good as or better than his and I have to consider his evidence
in the light of that assessment.’ 2L(16)[3]

‘Father says that she
is a manipulative liar. I do not believe this for a second. I thought
that this was a truthful lady whose evidence I accept and in so far
as it conflicts with the father’s evidence I have no hesitation
in preferring what mother had to say to me.’2L9[9]. (I was only
allowed the last ten minutes of the hearing to cross-examine the mother).

‘Social services report
that there had been many complaints by the father to them that the mother
was unfit, so much so that they were in the view of social services,
bordering on harassment and had given rise to investigations from the
period of June 94 to August 97 and these investigations had thrown up
no child protection issues or concerns’. 2L12[15].

This is contrary to the facts;
the Community Psychiatric nurse reported concerns to social services
in June 1994; we had moved to Spain from August 1st 1994 until November
1995 and the Social Worker Neil Toyne only made a single house visit
on 8th July 1996. Further, Social Services had set-up a care package
at the mother’s request. All of course missing from their investigations
and reports.

Social services carried out
the assessment of risk 5D1 without meeting me, taking into account evidence
and interviewed only the judge and CWO. I was also informed in the report
that I had no right to make a complaint about the report, 5D5 [6-8].
Could not call HHJ Milligan to give evidence and despite statements
under oath and in reports the GP 4H10 and 44 para 11, health Visitor
3B(3) and school 3E14(3) all deny any involvement in the assessment
of risk.

When questioned regarding
the locking in of my son she said 5G13G ‘’I’ve checked
with the health visitor as well about the locking in the bedroom and
that was dealt with a long-time ago and ‘’It was admitted
between the health visitor and the mother and it doesn’t happen
now.’’ This is contrary to the truth. The health visitor
notes 3B4-11, senior nurse managers confirmation 3B3 and the child and
family guidance notes 3B12-22 show this to be untrue.

When challenged on the health
visitor’s involvement and pointing out the Health Visitor had
no involvement with the my son since October 1998 and my daughter since
1996, the social worker changed her argument ‘’okay then
there’s currently no concern.’’ 5G9. It beggars belief
how a person who has not seen my daughter for four years and my son
for one and a half years could have any concern for them.

She stated under oath ‘’I
have worked with thousands of families and I can tell you I can sense
without even knowing when a mother’s emotionally unstable I don’t
even have to look at them I can sense it a mile off.’’ 5G9B
I have suggested to the director of social services the social worker
be employed by the Police forensic dept to prevent cases such as that
of Dr. Shipman.

‘’I have every
confidence that what his mother tells me is true or else he wouldn’t
be able to concentrate at school and he wouldn’t be putting on
weight.’’ ‘’I am sure that this can be clarified
through the mother. There are no problems with his eating and sleeping.’’
5G5/6 Again such reliance on the mother’s words alone is biased
and unprofessional.

Describing my son under oath
she said ‘’You’ve got one child that is actually a
little bit disruptive and all over the place’’. This is
contrary to the Social work addendum describing him as a delightful
typical 6 year old boy. He has now been referred for a full assessment.
5G14B

She said ‘’The
fact that he gets a tap on the mouth for spitting or swearing I do not
believe to be inappropriate’. Most six year olds spit and swear.’’
My son has never spat or sworn in my presence. 5G17B.

Describing my son’s
aggression to his sister; she said ‘’He will hit Xxxxxxxx
– if he doesn’t hit Xxxxxxxx I’d be very worried.
He will learn not to hit Xxxxxxxx when she slugs him back one day he’ll
stop.’’5G17F.

Article 6 rights are fundamental
and not to be offset or balanced against anyone else’s rights
under article 8.

Para 6; Inconvenience, costs
and delay do not, however, count in a case where the principle of judicial
impartiality is properly invoked. This is because it is the fundamental
principle of justice, both at common law and under Article 6 of the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. If, on an assessment
of all the relevant circumstances, the conclusion is that the principle
either has been, or will be, breached, the judge is automatically disqualified
from hearing the case. It is not a discretionary case management decision
reached by weighing various relevant factors in the balance.

Maggie Smith Social worker
under oath stated that she wished all fathers were as caring as I 5G13G
and that the reason my children behaved appropriately when with me was
associated with the way in which I treated them. 5G4B.

LJ Wilson last November described
me as highly intelligent. Mr. Justice Coleridge even stated in his judgement
that I gave a lucid and articulate presentation.

The respondent mother’s
full diagnoses of emotional instability after a battery of psychological
tests with the risk of psychological abuse of the children, her borderline
personality disorder and manipulative personality have never been assessed
or investigated which may well be related to the symptoms of Parental
Alienation Syndrome and psychological abuse.

Similarly the symptoms in
the children – my son’s sleep disturbances, anxiety, referrals
to child and family guidance every year since 1997 barring 2003, his
counseling for low self esteem and lack of confidence in 2004 and referral
to psychiatrist in 2005 or my daughter’s daytime wetting and UTIs
since 1997 neither have been investigated.

As a result the children
have been placed at risk of harm, yet the judicial comments I personally
have evidenced couldn’t be invented;

HHJ Milligan ‘This
is a man to whom I think it has never occurred that there might be another
view that might be as good as or better than his and I have to consider
his evidence in the light of that assessment.’

‘’This is a man,
in my judgement, who is pursuing his own interests which is completely
different thing to standing back and taking a serious view as to what
may be in the best interests of the children themselves...This is a
man who is blind to the children’s needs insofar as they come
second to his own plans’’

Mr. Justice Sumner in April
2002 said in this Court ‘If he is unable to separate his own intense
feelings about the injustice to him and the poor care that this mother
gives, the children will not have a proper relationship with their mother
if there is the risk that her standing with them will be undermined.’
2N14[13].

Mr. Justice Coleridge in
his judgement of March 29th this year stated ‘What the father
seems quite unable to appreciate is that the ongoing proceedings are
doing much more harm to the prospects of his seeing the children than
if he desisted.’

I refer the Court to Raja
V Austin Gray (a firm), [2002] EWHC 1607 (QB) 31st July 2002 and in
particular paragraph 12 where it states; It seems to me that it is reasonable
and in the public interest to expect professionals, and indeed anyone
else offering particular skills for reward, to exercise them with reasonable
competence. This includes the Judiciary with their ample pensions, lawyers,
barristers, Guardians, Social workers, CAFCASS officers.

LORD DENNING SAID: “Whoever
it be, no matter how powerful, the law should

provide a remedy for the
abuse or misuse of power, else the oppressed

will get to the point when
they will stand it no longer. They will find their

own remedy. There will be
anarchy.”

I am now at that point.

Appeal of February 22nd 2006
order

The first Application arises
from an order dated 22nd February 2006 of the Courts own motion that
has been unfortunately delayed as Bournemouth Registry informed the
Court of Appeal that there had been a hearing behind the order.

The Appeal from the order
of the Courts own motion on February 22nd 2006 was outstanding and to
preserve my position I had no choice but to walk out after informing
the Judge of the reasons before the hearing and at the end, contrary
to the order which states that I did not give notice, Mr. Justice Coleridge
rose and gave me five minutes to pack the voluminous papers.

It is unfortunate that the
Appeal of the order dated February 22nd 2006 has been delayed beyond
my control due to Bournemouth Courts informing the Court of Appeal that
there had been a hearing that day when there had been no hearing and
no Judgement.

Mr. Justice Coleridge made
an order on January 31st 2006 for a half day directions hearing after
he had requested the directions that I sought.

Mr. Justice Coleridge then
made an order of the Courts own motion. I was unaware of any written
request. I was unaware of the making of the order until it was received
on February 27th 2006.

Family proceedings rules
4.14 state —(1) In this rule, "party" includes the guardian
ad litem. (2) In proceedings to which this Part applies the court may,
subject to paragraph (3), give, vary or revoke directions for the conduct
of the proceedings, including-

the timetable for the proceedings;

the service of documents;

Directions under paragraph
(2) may be given, varied or revoked -

of the court's own motion
having given the parties notice of its intention to do so, and an opportunity
to attend and be heard or to make written representations,

I am unaware of or had any
notice to parties being given, pursuant to 4.14 (3) a, or of any written
request 4.14 (3) b or 4.14 (3)c, have not had the opportunity to be
heard or to make representations. Therefore the Court is in breach of
the above rule in making the order of the Court’s own motion.

I did not have the right
to put my case on the making of that order. I took the appropriate step
and Appealed.

The rules were not complied
with. The order was in breach of article 6.1 HRA 1998 and Family Proceedings
rules 4.14. Either the rules and due process exist and should be followed
or they do not. In this case they do.

Due process had not been
complied with. I had not even had the right to disclosure of documents
known or that should exist pursuant to Civil proceedings rules and for
which I had supplied a detailed statement and list of documents to be
disclosed dated September 9th 2005.

It has never been addressed
other than Mr. Justice Coleridge simply stating on March 29th 2006 ‘I’m
not ordering disclosure.’ without giving any reasons.

The order of February 22nd
without my input, knowledge or any right to give argument whether in
writing or orally reduced the full complex case from a half day hearing
for directions ONLY to a half day final hearing for hearing of removal
of the Guardian, appointment of child and adult psychologist Dr. Lowenstein
the other 16 directions sought along with the Guardian’s Application
for a section 91(14) order when she has not done any effective or otherwise
investigation, without the right to due process and in breach of article
6.1 and 8 HRA 1998.

A half day hearing was insufficient
time for the matters to be heard and these had unilaterally been condensed
by the Judge sitting showing Mr. Justice Coleridge was operating with
a closed mind as was shown by his giving defences on behalf of the Guardian
and refusing argument from me on disclosure simply stating ‘I
am not going to order disclosure.’

He had also ordered the Guardian
to prepare a report on contact. I have not made an Application for contact.
The only contact that may have been considered was interim contact until
expert had reported as to the abuse of my children and their current
psychological state as well as thta of the mother who has never been
investigated and the issue of alienation whether described as PAS or
PA.

He also ordered any skeleton
arguments to be filed the day before the hearing. This did not give
any time for a litigant in person to consider whatever argument may
be given.

If the Applications that
I sought were refused it is obvious that I would appeal.

Disclosure had not even been
addressed. The order also gave directions for the Guardian to file a
report on contact.

My Application was for residence
or shared residence which has not to date been addressed.

This order to file a report
on contact was no doubt explained by the Guardian’s Application
for a section 91(14) order.

What Mr. Justice Coleridge
was no doubt unaware of and yet ignored in it’s totality when
raised in Court is that she had not met parties, and had carried out
no investigation of medical or behavioural concerns, contacted the children’s
school or GP to get the medical files, paediatrician, checked the social
services files or had investigated my son’s counselling for low
self esteem and lack of confidence and his referral to psychiatrist
and the reasons for it.

The order of January 31st
had set the hearing for directions only.

I therefore submit that the
order was unlawful, unfair and had an unfair effect on the hearing set
for March 29th 2006 to which my only response could have been to put
my case on the three most urgent matters for removal of the guardian,
appointment of child and adult expert psychologist Dr. Lowenstein and
disclosure and to preserve my position by leaving Court after the blatant
bias shown to me and when the Appeal had not been heard against the
order of February 22nd.

The Guardian’s solicitors
notes

I have also requested for
release of the solicitors notes of the meetings and conversations with
my children prior to the hearing.

It has been delayed beyond
my control. I have the right to the notes since the Guardian’s
solicitor cannot usurp the role of the Guardian and she was not giving
legal advice but as she clearly stated in her letters to was carrying
out the role of the Guardian in understanding the wishes and feelings
of the children.

There has been no assessment
of Gillick competence in my children. If my children are sufficiently
aware and able to understand and make decision on their own behalf then
they should have been shown the papers concerning them before Court.

I tried to inform my children
on December 2nd 2005 of the truth but Mr. Justice Coleridge closed me
down when I did so.

The solicitor for the Guardian
has been regularly in contact with the children. These notes have not
been released and has been requested after Mr. Justice Coleridge refused
by way of Court order dated 21st November 2005 to have them released.
I did not Appeal directly at the time as after meeting my children and
witnessing Parental Alienation Syndrome as the Court had consistently
been warned was signed of sick by my GP.

The Solicitor cannot undertake
the role of the Guardian. It usurps the role of the Guardian who is
supposed to have specialist training in questioning children. If the
Guardian’s solicitor can carry out the role of the Guardian CAFCASS
could be scrapped.

Volume 1 H 16 letter dated
15th September Guardian’s solicitor stated that my daughter no
longer had utis, yet this is not in the Guardians notes and could only
have been told to the Solicitor direct. My daughters UTIs were ongoing
but the guardian had not sought the medical notes GP letter dated 9th
September 2005 Vol 1 K 12]

Guardian’s solicitor
met my children to prepare statements [letter dated 20th September 2005
vol 1 H 28 para 2/3 ] ‘I interviewed the children because it is
part of my job.’ Yet the Court had not been notified my children
were instructing the solicitor direct.

In letter dated 13th October
2005 [vol zero, K 1] ‘I have also spoken with the children directly
and communicate with them regularly. A lot of what the children have
said they have repeated both to the Guardian and myself but some of
the things they have said to me alone. Consequently the children’s
wishes and feelings will not always be fully expressed in the Guardian’s
contemporaneous notes.

In vol 1 H 38A letter dated
9th November 2005 Solicitor stated ‘My role at present is to build
a relationship with the children so that I can fully understand their
wishes and feelings.’

If the children were being
represented by the Solicitor to be legal advice then FPR 4.11 applies—(1)
In carrying out his duty under section 41(2), the guardian ad litem
shall have regard to the principle set out in section 1(2) and the matters
set out in section 1(3)(a) to (f) as if for the word "court"
in that section there were substituted the words "guardian ad litem".

where it appears to the guardian
ad litem that the child-

is instructing his solicitor
direct, or

intends to, and is capable
of, conducting the proceedings on his own behalf, he shall so inform
the court and thereafter-

shall perform all of his
duties set out in this rule, other than duties under paragraph (2)(a)
and such other duties as the court may direct,

shall take such part in the
proceedings as the court may direct, and

(iii) may, with leave of
the court, have legal representation in his conduct of those duties.

The Court was not informed.

Since these communication
had been made from the respondent mother’s house, all parties
except myself would be aware of the contents of the communications.
They were not to give legal advice as the Court was not informed pursuant
to FPR.

I have the right to know
what has been said as she was not giving legal advice but according
to her own words carrying ou the role of the Guardian.

The children’s words
have not been based on the facts of the case and with allegations of
psychological abuse and Parental alienation syndrome would be very important
in evidence and argument for appointment of child and adult psychologist
Dr. Lowenstein and the behaviour of the Guardian for her removal. I
therefore submit that these notes should be disclosed.

This brings me to the issue
of the Guardian’s notes and her failure to prepare contemporaneous
notes. The Court ordered that the Contemporaneous notes be released
to me after CAFCASS had tried to argue they could only be disclosed
after proceedings had ended in breach of article 6.1 HRA 1998. The Guardian’s
solicitor stated they were contemporaneous notes yet the Guardian under
stated they were only an aide memoir.

The Guardian stated that
her notes were an aide memoir and not contemporaneous notes under oath
to try and justify matters appearing in her report that were not in
her notes. It should also be remembered that the Guardian’s solicitor
was also interviewing and communicating with my children.

I draws the Court’s
attention to the CASE OF T.P. AND K.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application
no. 28945/95)

The local authority, which
is charged with the duty of protecting the child and is a party in the
court proceedings, may reasonably not be regarded by a parent as being
able to approach the issue with objectivity. The question whether crucial
material should be disclosed should therefore not be decided by the
local authority, or the health authority responsible for the medical
professional who conducted the interview.

The same principle applies
to CAFCASS officers.

The Guardian’s notes
are not full or contemporaneous. Her excuse was that they are an aide
memoir. Allegations of a serious nature have been made. The notes should
be full and contemporaneous. The Guardian under oath cannot remember
the date she told me she would first see the children and introduces
matters not in her notes into her final report.

Notes must be contemporaneous
and full. This would then comply with the duties of a registered social
worker, working together under the Children’s Act, and Police
and Criminal evidence Act 1984.

In the Report of the Inquiry
into Child Abuse in Cleveland (1987). At para. 12.34, it is to be noted
that unanimity was recorded among the experts who had given evidence
to the inquiry in relation to a number of matters. Those were endorsed
by the inquiry team:

All interviews should be
undertaken only by those with some training, experience and aptitude
for talking with children.

The need to approach each
interview with an open mind.

The style of the interview
should be open-ended questions to support and encourage the child in
free recall.

The interview should go at
the pace of the child and not of the adult.

The setting for the interview
must be suitable and sympathetic.

There must be careful recording
of the interview and what the child says, whether or not there is a
video recording.

It must be recognised that
the use of facilitative techniques may create difficulties in subsequent
court proceedings.

The great importance of adequate
training for all those engaged in this work.

In Lillie and Reed v Newcastle
City Council, a libel case heard in open Court at paragraph 405 it is
stated: what I derive from the expert evidence generally (and indeed
from the Cleveland Report, the Memorandum of Good Practice and the recent
judicial pronouncements on the subject) may be shortly and simply stated:

Young children are suggestible.

Great care is required in
analysing and assessing the weight to be given to statements from young
children.

It is important to take into
account the context of any such statement and how it was elicited (for
example, whether any pressures, rewards or leading questions were used).

It is necessary to focus
also on the wider circumstances of the child’s life in the period
leading up to any such "disclosure" that might explain or
colour what the child is saying.

It is vital to take into
account delay between any event recounted and the statement itself.

One should take into account
carefully any bias or pre-conceived ideas in the mind of an interviewer.

It is desirable to have in
mind throughout any scope for contamination by statements from others,
whether children or adults.

Similarities between what
one child is saying and the statements of another may be two-edged,
in the sense that they might tend to corroborate one another’s
accuracy or merely reflect a common source.

One should be wary of interpreting
childish references to behaviour, or parts of the body, through the
distorting gauze of adult learning or reading

And in paragraph 406 ‘the
Review team’s own expert Professor Bull told them that "
the way in which a child is interviewed/ questioned will have a profound
effect on the accuracy of a child’s testimony, especially if the
child is very young and the event(s) in question are in the distant
past". The general thrust of the research carried out in recent
years by Professor Bruck and her colleagues is well known. Indeed...
anyone nowadays looking into allegations of child abuse would be "mad"
not to take it into account. .... What the research has thrown into
stark relief is quite simply that very young children do not appear
to have the same clear boundary between fact and fantasy as that which
most adults have learnt to draw.

and in paragraph 408 At the
risk of over-simplification, it is possible to highlight some of the
propositions thrown up by the research that need to be addressed. ...It
is important, first, to recognise that, although such obvious factors
as leading questions, repetition, pressure, threats, rewards and negative
stereotyping can fundamentally undermine the evidential worth of a child’s
account, it may well be that a child will tailor his or her account
in response to more subtle and less easily detected influences. In particular,
there is (or may be) a tendency to say what the child perceives the
questioner would like to hear. Moreover, it may not be as easy to spot
that a child is adopting such an approach, as it would be to identify
a leading question. What had, I believe, not been generally appreciated
prior to the recent research was that children do not merely parrot
what has been suggested to them but will embellish or overlay a particular
general theme with apparently convincing detail. This can be very difficult
to detect, even for those who are experienced in dealing with children.

CAFCASS clearly are not following
good practice in questioning children and arriving at results which
are predictable given the lack of objective, impartial and knowledgeable
procedure and research being used or is that CAFCASS’s intention
to use it in reverse just as the methodology of PAS investigations.

The need for notes to be
contemporaneous and full are also noted in guidance given in Working
together under the Children Act and supplements from the Department
of Health. The Guardian was plainly wrong to not keep contemporaneous
notes and as ever Mr. Justice Coleridge ignored the facts of the hearing
before him.

Meeting with my children

The meeting with my children
on December 2nd 2005 was very revealing. Mr. Justice Coleridge had stated
that it may raise a whole raft of issues yet he ignored them despite
bringing them to his attention.

It was clear that the respondent
mother and stepfather have manipulated them. 1AC5A…Their hostility
was illogical and at times severe manifesting many of the features of
parental Alienation Syndrome.

I was accused by my daughter
of manipulating them for giving them a good time, 1AC7 and 1AC what
am I supposed to do? Abuse them as the mother has done and then attempt
to cover it up? Would I be rewarded with residence if I had so behaved?

They hated their then six
year old, now seven-year-old cousin. 1AC9A-B.

They had been given false
information regarding material on websites that they claimed to have
seen but could not since it did not exist. The Guardian’s solicitor
had threatened me with applying to Court for publishing material the
Guardian admitted under oath that she had not checked f to see if it
was true. 1AC15-17.

On November 10th 2005 my
son had requested help for his behavioural problems yet at that meeting
he stated they had ended six months previously. 1AC12E/G.

My daughter had memory blocks
of violence by the mother which Mr. Justice Coleridge heard on the tape.
1AC9/10.

My daughter accused me of
inventing my son being locked in the bedroom by the mother and stepfather.
1AC11B.

My daughter did not know
if I had made hundreds of Applications or a couple. 1AC4E.

Yet my son stated that the
stepfather admitted he knew he was doing wrong but blames my son. My
son now believes that he used to beat people up. 1AC11.

My son had memories from
when he was two and a half, which is psychologically impossible. 1AC11F

Both children bluntly refused
Christmas presents. 1AC.

This was all false information
fed by the mother and stepfather. All of this need proper input as my
son has had behavioural problems with the mother from 1997. My daughter
has had daytime wetting and urinary tract infections since 1997 for
which there is no physical cause and daytime wetting lasting over three
months is indicative of emotional abuse, never mind seven years.

My daughter sent a loving
letter in April 2001 4(O)1-4.

I refer the Court to Sommerfeld
v Germany whereby it states:

42. ‘‘it must
determine whether, having regard to the particular circumstances of
the case and notably the importance of the decisions to be taken, the
applicant has been involved in the decision-making process, seen as
a whole, to a degree sufficient to provide him with the requisite protection
of his interests.

43. ..Correct and complete
information on the child’s relationship with the applicant as
the parent seeking access to the child is an indispensable prerequisite
for establishing a child’s true wishes and thereby striking a
fair balance between the interests at stake.

44. In the Court’s
opinion, the German courts’ failure to order a psychological report
on the possibilities of establishing contacts between the child and
the applicant reveals an insufficient involvement of the applicant in
the decision-making process. ’’

In the case of CASE OF GÖRGÜLÜ
v. GERMANY (Application no. 74969/01) 26 February 2004 it is stated
that ‘‘Although the essential object of Article 8 is to
protect the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities,
there may in addition be positive obligations inherent in an effective
“respect” for family life. Thus, where the existence of
a family tie has been established, the State must in principle act in
a manner calculated to enable that tie to be developed and take measures
that will enable parent and child to be reunited

In the case of ELSHOLZ v.
GERMANY (Application no. 25735/94) 13 July 2000; The Court, having regard
to its findings with respect to Article 8 considers that in the present
case, because of the lack of psychological expert evidence and the circumstance
that the Regional Court did not conduct a further hearing although,
in the Court's view, the applicant's appeal raised questions of fact
and law which could not adequately be resolved on the basis of the written
material at the disposal of the Regional Court, the proceedings, taken
as a whole, did not satisfy the requirements of a fair and public hearing
within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. There has thus been a breach
of this provision.

Yet my children have not
been able to tell fact from fiction, truth from falsity and unless an
expert independent and impartial child psychologist is brought in the
children will not have their psychological integrity respected, their
voice will not be heard or their medium and long term best interests
or their welfare respected.

If after the meeting with
my children Mr. Justice Coleridge had any real concern that there was
no problem with them, he would not have made the order dated 31st January
for a half day hearing for directions.

The Guardian had sought three
experts as of 17th November but the person who thought an expert was
not so urgent was Charles Hale QC after reading the Guardian’s
initial core bundle which did not include the evidential material necessary
only the orders and judgments and the social worker’s flawed and
invented investigations.

Coleridge’s judgment

Mr. Justice Coleridge said
in the hearing ‘I’m not reinvestigating ..subjecting court
proceedings and funds.’ His only concern has been with cost and
the judge offered no guarantee sufficient to exclude any legitimate
doubt in this respect as afforded by Article 6 of the ECHR. (De Cubber
v. Belgium, Publ. Court, Series A, vol. 86, pp. 13-14, § 24).

The Applicant feared that
his submissions and evidence would not be given a fair hearing, not
only before the hearing but also during the hearing when subsequent
behaviour further proved the matter.

It must be remembered that
I did not know what was said in the Judgement as once the Applications
for removal of the Guardian, appointment of child psychologist and disclosure
had been refused I had no choice but to leave Court as the Appeal of
the order of February 22nd 2006 was awaited to be heard.

The skeleton argument for
the Court of Appeal was provided on the basis of the facts of the case
and also on the facts of what had happened in Court.

The Judgement is date stamped
1st June. I did not receive it until 4th June 2006. Despite an email
from Mr. Justice Coleridge’s clerk that they thought the reel
had left Portsmouth, I discovered that neither Mr. Justice Coleridge
or his clerk had ordered the transcript at Public expense and the order
was in Bournemouth County Court without any instructions on implementation.

As I suspected Mr. Justice
Coleridge would ignore relevant matters, ignore the children’s
welfare, and ignore anything I said and misled himself and further he
introduced matters he never raised in Court.

Mr. Justice Coleridge states
he does not believe that I did not receive the emailed skeleton argument
of Charles Hale, I do not have email at home and did not even know it
was being sent and never have been asked or consented to service by
e-mail as is required by FPR.

I did not receive it until
half an hour or so before the hearing. He invents matters in his Judgement
as he never raised this in Court. Charles Hale stated in Court that
it was unfortunate that I had not received it.

If Mr. Justice Coleridge
had raised this in Court I would have disabused him. Charles Hale or
the other parties did not raise this. I had thought that my opponents
were the other parties but turned out to be Mr. Justice Coleridge by
inventing his judgement after the event.

The judge ordered a report
on contact in his own motion order dated February 22nd 06 and then in
his Judgement [para 7 page 4] he states that he moved onto the third
Application for residence, shared residence or contact. The Guardian’s
report was only on contact. I was unprepared for such a change but this
has only appeared in the Judgement – in Court he stated contact
.

I had not applied for contact.
I disabused the Judge when he stated he was going to hear my Application
for contact in that, until an expert is involved even interim contact
was premature. The blame for any suffering of my children [and there
is a long history of problems, resides entirely with the mother, stepfather
and the State bodies and biased Judges.

Mr. Justice Coleridge knew
that I was appealing the order. [Page 18E of the Judgement]. I had notified
all parties and the Court not only prior to the hearing but at the beginning
of the hearing. Knowing that I was appealing his order of February 22nd
and he refers to Applications for appointment of child psychologist,
removal of Guardian and disclosure (although he denies in his judgement
and simply misleads himself [Page 3 para 6]).

It was pursued when he himself
refused it after lunch with out permitting any argument or giving any
reasons.

I was not given the Appeal
on April 28th 2005 by the Court of Appeal because the previous section
91(14) order was time unlimited [Para 4 and 39] but because HHJ Milligan
had the appearance of bias for the gratuitous words ‘come to me
in a different frame of mind and anything may be possible.’

I appealed on his bias and
the hearing before him was for his recusal for being a biased judge.
I had not Appealed the section 91(14) order since it was given by fraud
and by a biased judge who gave me a homily as I was leaving Court. Mr.
Justice Coleridge is merely protecting the lower Court judges he is
responsible for. He cannot change the basis or the grounds upon which
the previous Appeal heard on April 28th 2005 was made or given.

Mr. Justice Coleridge states
para 3 that only one hearing was heard by HHJ Bond and all other by
himself. This is untrue. There was only one hearing on November 21st
2005 heard by Mr. Justice Coleridge. HHJ Bond heard matters on July
1st, August 1st, and September 9th 2005.

I have not made an Application
for contact – Mr. justice Coleridge ordered a report on contact
in his order of February 22nd 2006 of the Courts own motion. (para 4).
The Application before the Court was for residence/ shared residence
after the system sorts out its own mess.

There is no analysis or mention
of the argument that I put to Court.

There is no mention of the
case law that I raised.

Whilst Charles Hale refers
to the mother and stepfather being heard; there is no mention whatsoever
of their argument. The stepfather had not even given a statement so
could not give evidence in Court.

There is nothing on the issue
of the children’s surnames unlawfully changed by the mother.

There is nothing on the failure
of the Guardian to check the websites before instructing her solicitor
to threaten me, when there was nothing to see on fathers4justice and
only my name on men’s hour.

There is nothing on the perjury
of the social worker. There is nothing on bias of HHJ Milligan or the
fact that there is no estoppel and the welfare of the children has not
been paramount.

He states Para 42 ‘The
system cannot be used by litigants to fight campaigns against the statutory
services for its own sake.’ I would remind the Court that the
Judiciary should not be protecting criminal and unlawful acts of the
State bodies. Their acts have perverted the course of justice and misled
the Court and been against the best interests of the children and their
welfare.

There is no analysis or even
comment on the decision making process of the Guardian.

I do not need leave to Appeal
from Mr. Justice Coleridge. Page 19. No Jugde is going to give permission
to Appeal when he himself refuses the Applications, he would be admitting
that he was plainly wrong.

The Judge refers to two bundles
from the Guardian I was never served with these. I was only sent an
up-dated index, which appears to be for one bundle which I neither received.

I did not have the whole
morning as Mr. Justice Coleridge states we did not go into Court until
11am.

Mr. Justice Coleridge did
not use or consider the welfare checklist.

Mr. Justice Coleridge stated
that there are no concerns of the children and deliberately ignored
my son’s regular referrals to child and family guidance, counselling
for low self-esteem and lack of confidence, and referral to psychiatrist.
My daughters maturity which is a factor for child protection where children
are not permitted to be children. My daughters ongoing urinary tract
infections and daytime wetting since 1997. The mother’s emotional
and psychological history and my daughter describing the mother’s
behaviour as being the same as my son.

Mr. Justice Coleridge has
the temerity to state that I am abusing the family Justice system (para
42) and the system is itself in serious danger of abusing the children.
He is misleading himself. No wonder he did not want to read all the
documents before the Court. He then will have realised that the children
have already been abused by the mother and stepfather, under the noses
of the child protection system.

The case law referred to
Mabon was not used in the skeleton argument and never served on me.
Mr. Justice Coleridge ignored the case law that I provided for parties
and the Court. This seems common practise throughout his judgement and
in his behaviour in Court.

Mr. justice Coleridge stated
(Para 42) ‘The father has been warned and counselled by judges
over and over again, that he will not achieve his aim by endless forensic
brute force.’

I do not know where this
comes from. Again matters raised in the Judgement were not raised in
Court or I would have disabused him. Perhaps applying an agile brain
to the actions and omissions of the state Authorities and what she be
good practice is uncomfortable rather being led by the nose with State
controlled lawyers.

The tape he refers to in
Para 7 and 26 is evidence from 1995 to October 1999, shortly before
the mother stopped all contact in breach of Court order. It was evidence
of what the children have been subjected to by the mother, her violence,
instability, punishment of my daughter for disclosing the locking in
of my son, and evidence of alienation in that the children’s memories
have been altered, and my daughter had memory blocks.

Sara McCartney MP heard the
same tape. Her reaction was instantaneous: ‘it sounds like the
mother is unstable.’ Mr. Justice Coleridge states that ‘The
mother sounds, on occasions, to be completely besides herself and at
the end of her tether.’ Para 26. This is untrue. She was having
psychiatric and psychological therapy for problems of personal origin
with the risk of psychological abuse of the children.

That tape must be played
in open Court. It contains selected material to show that after the
psychiatrist had signed the mother off simply for postnatal depression
her behaviour was the same. As proof that I was the victim of violence
at her hands. To show the extent to which the mother went including
punishing my daughter for disclosing the locking in of my son to the
class teacher and to the CWO Linda Middleditch. Her unlawful threats
to kill me and that I would never see the children again.

It is also proof that on
January 3rd 1998 my daughter did say ‘Daddy I don’t want
her to hit you’ on another occasion of violence by the mother
and also that her solicitor was behind her actions forcing her to do
things that she did not want to do and not acting on her instructions
as he should be.

This is clear evidence that
Mr. Justice Coleridge should not act as child psychologist. The mother
was fully diagnosed as being emotionally unstable after a battery of
psychological tests.

In Para 27 Mr. Justice Coleridge
refers to ‘a very lengthy statement by the father running I think
to some 59 paragraphs over six pages.’ I never submitted any skeleton
argument for the hearing.

In Paragraphs 33 to 37, Mr.
Justice Coleridge addresses the issue of appointment of child psychologist.
Mr. Justice Coleridge does address any arguments presented. He states
that ‘The father is convinced that the children’s views
are planted by the mother. It is far more likely in my Judgement that
the children’s views are the result of the father’s actions
and behaviour.’ This is trite.

How can a person who has
not been in contact with their children from October 26th 1999 be blamed
for the children’s changes of memory, memory blocks, the hostility
to the whole of his family including grandparents and seven year old
cousin as evidenced in the meeting with the children and when the children
admit they have been told all of this by the mother and stepfather.
This is not just father blaming. This is arrant nonsense.

The Guardian never pointed
out that there has never been a difficulty with the children talking
happily about happy events in the past. The Guardian admitted that the
only photo the children had was from 1995 or beforehand when I had a
beard. There were no photos of me after. I had long hair and no beard
from 1996.

The mother’s hostility
and psychological/ emotional problems and the admittals by my daughter
that the mother’s behaviour is similar to that of my son in being
unable to control herself. There can be no evidence for concern for
a psychological report if the Judge and Guardian act partially and ignored
the evidence. Mr. Justice Coleridge made no mention in his judgements
of my son’s referral to child and family guidance after 1997 every
year barring 2003, his referral to a counsellor for low self esteem
and lack of confidence and his referral after to a psychiatrist.

Mr. Justice Coleridge ignored
the fact that the mother has never been investigated for the diagnosis
of emotional instability and borderline personality disorder which despite
Court order in 1997 has never been investigated and is most probably
linked to the mother’s behaviour.

Mr. Justice Coledridge ignored
the fact that it is proven in the words of the children that the mother
and stepfather have told false stories to the children which is typical
of alienation.

Mr. Justice Coleridge stated
that a large degree of co-operation is needed for a psychological assessment.
If that is the case; no child would ever go to the dentist, GP or school.
Alienation would never be addressed or psychological difficulties. My
son happily wanted help on November 10th 2005. He asked for help, and
he wanted to go to a psychiatrist. I asked the Court if necessary to
make the children wards of Court. Time and time again Mr. Justice Coleridge
has bent over backwards for the mother/ Guardian and ignored the children’s
welfare in the process.

In Para 21 he refers to my
position statement of 362 pages. This was not my position statement
but an addendum to remind the Court of the law and child psychology.
My Position statement was not put in the Guardian’s bundle. She
deliberately misled the Court and has refused to amend it.

In Paragraph 37 Mr. Justice
Coleridge refers to the third and main application for contact. I have
never made an Application for contact. Mr. Justice Coleridge invented
this in his order dated February 22nd 2006.

Mr. Justice Coleridge stated
in paragraph 41 that ‘the father is on a crusade in relation to
the past.’ Mr. Justice Coleridge ignores the past and present,
as the Guardian; the welfare issues for which there has been no investigation
such as UTIs/ daytime wetting from 1997 to at least February 2005, my
son’s regular referrals to child and family guidance, counselling
for low self esteem and lack of confidence, referral to psychiatrist
and the mother’s psychological and emotional history and diagnoses
with the risk of psychological abuse of the children which is inconsistent
parenting which seems to be ongoing and has never been investigated
in the UK.

Mr. Justice Coleridge as
the Guardian ignores the fact that my son had been referred to a psychiatrist
in 2005 which I had stopped because it had to be a report from the Court
due to PAS and/ or alienation and psychological abuse which is inconsistent
parenting typified by the on-going problems that Guardian and Mr. Justice
Coleridge have all ignored.

In Para 11 Mr. Justice Coleridge
states that ‘The father has always maintained that the children
are at risk with their mother, in the face of the clearest evidence
that this was not so; that evidence has been produced by a number of
statutory services.’ I don’t believe Mr. Justice Coleridge
has even bothered to look at the evidence or factual arguments in the
various submissions. It has never been investigated. The only investigation
by Statutory body involved social services who never met me, invented
their report, and interviewed the Judge and CWO as the sole bodies contacted.

Mr. Justice Coleridge states
that the ‘battle over the children has waged ...over an astonishing
nine years.’ Para 10. He forgets that I was banned by virtue of
the section 91(14) order from April 2000 until April 2005. A total of
five years! There have only been 10 hearings up this Application on
27th February 1997, December 1st and 2nd 1997, 1st May 1998, 17th August
1998, 23 rd September 1998, 27th October 1999, January 13th 2000, 11th
April 2000, 17th December 2001, 22nd January 2002. I was subject to
a section 91(14) order wrongly imposed by HHJ Milligan from April 2002
to April 2005. Plenty of time for the mother and stepfather to cover
up their abuse and to alienate the children further as this case shows.

Mr. Justice Coleridge stated
in para 6 of his Judgement ‘in particular, a Dr. Lowenstein, the
American exponent of the much questioned theory ‘parental alienation
syndrome.’ He ignores the fact that Battered women’s syndrome
accepted in the Criminal Courts is not in DSM 1V and was refused for
inclusion, that Parental Alienation Syndrome is accepted in Germany,
Holland, Spain, Israel, passed two Frye tests in the USA and a Mohan
test in Canada. There is also a PAS file set up for the DSM Committee
meeting this year and reporting in 2010. I raised in Court that the
recognition of PAS in the UK appears to be a political problem.

Having training in anger
management and special needs it is obvious that PAS exists. The transcript
of the children clearly shows factors of PAS from memory blocks, new
memories, lies from the stepfather that my son used to beat children
up, my son having memories from two and a half years old, hostility
of the children’s own volition, extension of the hostility to
the whole of the father’s family including a seven year old cousin,
and extreme hostility because ‘you made it look so good.’

What was I supposed to do?
Abuse the children like the mother? Would I have been given residence
if I had behaved in the manner that she has done?

When challenged on findings
of HHJ Milligan as a biased judge Mr. Justice Coleridge stated ‘She’s
bound to rely on his findings.’ Yet there is no estoppel the children’s
welfare cannot be paramount if biased, and fraudulent and untrue material
is relied upon.

The decision that the Court
makes will also be based on wrong facts, not be in the best interests
of the children, against their welfare and medium and long-term best
interests which is allegedly the courts paramount consideration and
simply promulgate the abuses experienced to date.

When challenged on the biased
and perjured evidence of Maggie Smith Social worker Mr. Justice Coleridge
said that he would not re-open social services enquiries and it would
be extremely abusive of the children. He then said If the children have
problems – then I’d try to discover more regarding the past...
your daughter is an extremely pretty young lady. Do only ugly children
need help?

He ignored my son’s
referrals to child and family guidance, for counselling and to a psychiatrist,
his request for help on November 10th 2005 and my daughter’s daytime
wetting and urinary tract infections which are clear indicators of concern
as well as the fact that they were lying in Court before him.

I have already mentioned
that the Guardian’s solicitor has already admitted in writing
that Mr. Justice Coleridge did not hear from the other parties when
I have the fundamental right to adversarial process as recognised in
European jurisprudence.

A judge has no locus standi
to raise the defence of fact for a party! He thus became the Defendant!
And, he ceased to be a judge! In other words, he was, in law, a biased
judge( See: Langborger v. Sweden (1990) 12 EHRR 416 at para 32). This
is a blatant breach of article 6.1 HRA 1998.

Similarly it has also been
admitted that I did proceed with my Application for disclosure contrary
to the words in his judgement stating that I did not proceed. A further
breach of article 6.1 especially when he just said I’m not ordering
disclosure and refusing further argument.